Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14
republicans have a blind eye to the waste in the defense department and the mismanagement and the duplication and the swinging revolving door from retired military officers to the very companies that end up getting the contracts that pay their salaries to get another contract to keep going on things that necessarily are not priorities. let me just take an example here for a moment, if i can, -- actually, this is the best one. here's all the programs on green buildings. anybody think that makes sense? that's why we had to have a chart this big, because it's absolutely asinine what we're doing. the duplication of what we're doing through multiple different departments in terms of incentivizing green buildings. just think about if you just had five or ten people in the administration of each one of these programs what you would save if you ended up just having five or six programs. what would the -- and what would the benefit be that would innure through the years in terms of the compounded savings for our kids and young people in this country? so when you look, here's green
to by the israelis who probably understand better than anyone what defense capabilities might be used someday to threaten their security -- we would be rupturing a decades-long partnership and denying our -- and squandering our influence with the leaders of one of the most important institutions in egypt. the ramifications of this decision would be enormous, especially when it comes to the ability of u.s. ships, including u.s. aircraft carriers and other vessels, to transit the suez canal securely and effectively. i would urge the senator from kentucky to call the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and ask him what effect this would have on the u.s. military and america's overall national security. as i say, this amendment would be even more detrimental to our ally, israel, for which the continuing instability in egypt is an abiding clear and present danger. i have seen no objections raised by our israeli allies to u.s. military assistance to egypt, nor do i expect to see any. here, too, i would urge my colleague to pick up the phone and call the israeli ambassador or just recall what i'm
, everybody. i'm danielle pletka, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the american enterprise institute. welcome to the first in our annual series of state of the union policy event. every year, aei scholars come together. we look forward to the challenges of the year ahead and policy questions that have been raised, and are likely to come up, and try and look forward a little bit, think a little bit about what the right answers are to the questions that are being posed. one of the few events we do with only aei scholars, although i'm very happy to be together with them. i will lay out for you what the other events are at the end of the session but let me introduce the folks who are here with me at the table. first on the far left, so to speak, is -- sort. on the far left is a resident scholar at aei and asian studies, specializing in japan although he does a lot of work on pacific and air power as well. next to him is fred kagan, another resident scholar at the american enterprise institute, the christopher demuth chair, and the executive director of our critical t
of the spending cuts have come from non-defense spending? the answer is "no." is it fair that the republicans continue to want to go after social security, medicare, even food substance tha stamps, thate poorest of the poor? let's start talking about fairness. even romney said there are loopholes that should be closed. we agree with mitt romney. we would hope the republicans would agree with their nominee for president. that's what we hope to do, to have a fair approach to sequestration and balancing the budget. later today the senate will vote on the house-passed legislation to suspend the debt ceiling until the summer and remove the specter of default hanging over the nation's economy. i suspect this will pass sending the message long and clear that while we're willing to negotiate on many things, we will not engay inch in another -- engage in another irresponsible debate over whether the united states government should pay its bills. most of my republican colleagues voted for the spending. what are some of those bills we've incurred? mr. president, we've had two wars going on that have bee
-1 tanks or certain other defense articles or services to the government of egypt. s. 204, a bill to preserve and probing the free choice of individual employees to perform, join or assist labor organizations or to refrain from such activities. mr. reid: i ask for a second reading on both these measures but object to my own request on both measures. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the bills will be read the second time in the next legislative day. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that natalie beckman, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of calendar year 2013. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 2:00 p.m. on monday, february 4, following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the leaders be reserved for use later in the day and following any leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business until 5:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak for up
round of defense cuts. this year, about $55 billion will be sequestered in ways that you need to the department. it's not that this is just automatic across-the-board meat cleaver approach. but there was some wiggle room granted to the president and particularly he has chosen personal benefits. so the cuts that have to be made, coming as they will come, about halfway through the budget year will fall disproportionately on the weapons procurement and research , in particular on the maintenance accounts that make trained and ready units for deployment. and because this set of accounts also includes things it means that it will fall on these rapid spending accounts that are most directly associated with making units ready to deploy the combat fields. now, i am sure that the department was intact last week and the chairman said we have a set of managed cuts. we are managing them so that noncritical counts will be protected. well, sometimes there is not much that isn't pretty critical. ammunition and gasoline, for instance, to do training went. paying the contractors who run the ra
come together. and i think it can happen. i really do. >> last december we did the defense authorization bill. we dispensed with 380 amendments and we went forward and we did the right thing. i am, guardedly optimistic we will do, we -- >> we did that bill and postal reform toward the end of last year. it was little-noticed but there were a number of important and complicated pieces of legislation, that didn't pass the house, most of them. the defense did, that got through the senate with good bipartisan support. >> senator mccain do you buy the pendulum idea that it reached its nadir, right at the bottom and reached its worst point and is getting better? >> i do. i do. maybe i'm wrong. maybe that's not the case. but i think as chuck just mentioned we've sown we can make certain progress in other areas and i think historians who study the senate, as boring as this might be, will look back on this aversion of this nuclear option because, if it had happened and it was going to happen unless we had come up with this road map for the leaders, maybe that is sound a little egotis
for health care. here's our plan for energy. here's our plan for defense. and when we do that, when we put our plans out against the president's actual results, i think we'll compare quite favorably. we will win back the trust of the american people. and we will put our plans into action. that's what you do in moments like this. you pick yourself up, you dust yourself off, you fight for what you believe in, and you get back to work. we have a lot to do in the next four years. the challenges continue to mount, and it is so easy to get discouraged by it all. the election loss, the difficulty of the change that's coming. but as william f. buckley, my fellow catholic would say, it's a mortal sin to despair. i'm not ready to give up. and i know you aren't either. you wouldn't be here if you were. that's why i want to ask you for your help. in this effort every conservative needs to be involved. you know, after the election i needed to take a little bit of time. [laughter] i needed, as rich said, i needed to get into the woods because that's where i recharge. so i took my daughter, liza, hunting
angry at him, and they were angry at him for throwing them on the defensive for seeming feckless in the management of and prosecution of the war. and i think that these were, you know, this was sort of, you know, concomitant casualties and that as a result the republican party getting thrown on its heels on immigration, you know, in many 2006 i published -- in 2006 i published a book on hillary clinton called -- >> john, we're going to come back. >> no, let me finish this point, because it's interesting. the morning i did, i had 150 radio interviews scheduled, the book was being sent off in a big way. first book about hillary clinton in 2008, and i did eight interviews the first day, and every single one of those interviews i came on on a conservative radio station somewhere in the country, and i said, yes, i'm here to talk about my book, "can she be stopped," and the conservative radio talk show host would say -- this is april 2006 -- i don't want to talk about that, i want to talk about immigration and what bush is doing. what's going on? this was supposed to be a friendly audi
as wide ranging as defense at one end of the spectrum and entitlements at the other end of the spectrum and everything in between. we owe it to them to consider how our actions today might forestall, might complicate, might impair our ability to fund those programs down the road. it's for this reason that i think we need to offset this spending, and we can do it by cutting only .5% of our discretionary spending over the next nine years. for that reason, i urge each of my colleagues to support this amendment. thank you, mr. president. i yield back the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, first of all, i want to thank the distinguished chairlady of the appropriations committee for all of her incredible work and help here, as well as that of the staff, in bringing us here to this moment. we wouldn't be here without her tremendous work, especially in light of chairman inouye's passing. and i appreciate the ranking member as someone who understands the challenges, having come from a gulf state that saw the consequen
programs, more defense funding, funding for transportation needs, paving roads and repairing bridges, and on and on and on it goes. we all have those priorities. there are things that we would like to do but we haven't faced up to the fact that we can't do everything we would like to do. we have to do the essential things and prioritize our spending at a time when we don't have the revenue to do everything that we would like. it's no different than a family having financial difficulties and sitting down with a family and say, you know, our annual trip to disney world just can't happen this year. we don't -- dad's paycheck is not bringing in the kind of money that it used to or we're not in the financial position to be able to do what we would like to do. so, therefore, we have to make some changes and we have to make some adjustments. maybe this year we want to go to brown county state park -- which, by the way, is an exceptional park in indiana and a great place for family vacations. but it is a priority decision, the kind of decision you have to make when you simply don't have the
reaching that point. one is the defense of marriage act, section three about federal benefits the federal government has to get the same preferences and these sorts of things. for people who are lawfully married in their state you are gay. and you can see justice kennedy still may being the deciding vote but completely on federalism grounds. he seems like federalism more and more if you look at is writing the last few years without talking about fundamental rights or equal protection. and another cases california's we're to propagate. i'm not going to go into because my time is limited. i want to talk about other things. but i think the most likely think there is there is a technicality procedure going about standing or movements or who can stand in the seat of to represent your case to the court. that would also be one way to hand victory on i guess federalism grounds in the dome a case while also not enshrine a constitutional right to gay marriage, the court is not ready to do that. moving on to which probably right now, what alex will talk about, the hottest issue and that's gun-contro
replaces republican olympia snowe who retired. >> on thursday, president obama's pic to be defense secretary chuck hagel will testify at a senate confirmation hearing. we will have live coverage from the senate armed services committee at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span and c-span radio. >> the 2005 real id act establishes standards for drivers licenses and other documents based on recommendations from the 9/11 commission. 13 states are fully compliant with a lot today. next, a conversation on state id standards posted by the heritage foundation. this is 50 minutes. >> good morning, welcome to the heritage foundation. we, of course, welcome those who join us on our website. those that will be joining us on c-span as well. i would ask everyone in house if you will check to make sure cell phones have been turned off as we prepare to begin. always helpful. i am pleased today to cohost this event with the coalition for a secured driver's license, as we discuss real id and its affects. hosting a program on behalf of heritage is jessica zuckerman, research associate in our cente
hagel to be the next secretary of defense has already done damage to the united states' credibility in its attempt to deny iran a nuclear weapon. thus emboldening one of the most dangerous regimes in the middle east. to limit that damage, president obama should choose someone else to lead the pentagon. after all, the nebraska senator is the same person who has consistently opposed sanctions against iran. he's the same person who wanted washington to support iranian membership in the world trade organization. he's the same person who voted against designating the iranian ref fusiorevolutionary guard coa terrorist group at a time when it was orchestrating the murder of u.s. troops in iraq. he's the same person who refused to sign a letter asking the european union to labor hezbollah -- to label hezbollah as a terror group, even though it is so designated by the united states state department. he is the same person who urged president bush to offer iran -- quote -- "direct, uncondition l, and comprehensive talks." close quote. he's the same person who called for establishing a united s
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14